INDERJIT SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, with the following prayers:

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Punjab National Bank, Jor Bagh Branch, New Delhi. At the relevant time, he was posted in Kirti Nagar Branch, New Delhi. On Aug. 8, 1986, an FIR bearing No. 185/86 was registered pursuant to which, the petitioner was arrested and put under suspension on Aug. 14, 1986. It is matter of record that the letter of suspension was modified on Sept. 28, 1986. The FIR was related to Sections 420/ 468/471 IPC. The allegations primarily were that one Mr. Ashok Kumar was employed with the complainant Darshan Lal and he used to collect cheques from DTC and deposit the same in the account of the complainant. Accused Ashok Kumar obtained some cheques from DTC and opened a false account in the name of Darshan Lal in the branch office of the respondent bank at Kirti Nagar, where the petitioner was working and deposited the cheques and encashed the amount and misappropriated the same. The role of the petitioner was that he introduced the accused Ashok Kumar as Darshan Lal and signed the account opening form. The petitioner superannuated on Jan. 31, 1999. The criminal case was finally decided by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi on Jan. 13, 2004, wherein the petitioner was acquitted by giving him, benefit of doubt. Based on the judgment of the Criminal Court, the respondent bank has passed an order dated Oct. 14, 2006, denying the benefit of full wages and other benefits to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension from Aug. 14, 1986 till he attained the age of superannuation on Jan. 31, 1999. It is this order, which is under challenge before this Court in the present petition.

(3.) It is the submission of Mr. Ashok Bhalla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the word "benefit of doubt" in the writ petition is a misnomer inasmuch as the petitioner was honourably acquitted as there was no evidence found against the petitioner of any misdemeanour. According to him, the finding of benefit of doubt would only arise when on the basis of evidence, two views were possible and after analysis of the evidence, the Court gives the benefit of doubt in view of the two views possible. It is not a case where the evidence, which has come on record, depicts two views. It was only one view that there was no iota of evidence to show the petitioner was having any dishonest intention to cheat the complainant, which was the subject-matter of charge against the petitioner. He would state that there is a finding of the Criminal Court that from the evidence on record, it is not even established that the petitioner was aware at the time of introducing the accused Ashok Kumar that he was Ashok and not Darshan Lal. He has drawn my attention to the judgment of the Criminal Court dated Jan. 13, 2004 in that regard, more specifically para 10 wherein the Criminal Court has given its finding qua the petitioner. According to him, Chapter 19 of the Bipartite Settlement dated Oct. 19, 1966 deals with disciplinary action and procedure thereof. He states that in terms of para 19.3(c), which is reproduced as under, which provision has been invoked by the respondent Bank, they could not have treated the period of suspension as period not spent on duty and deny the benefits of full back wages and other benefits for the period under suspension.